2/04/2016

Headline Feb 05, 2016/ ''' Technology -*STUDENTS*- Poverty '''

''' Technology -*STUDENTS*- Poverty '''

THOSE WHO ATTENDED -the recently concluded World Economic Forum held at Davos should have gone back home with two messages:

Both these messages are terribly important for all the countries of the developing world. And both received a great deal of attention in the discussions at the resort in the Alps.

The first was about inequality and how it affects economic growth and political development. The second was about technological development and its consequences for the development of the global economy.

Several papers were prepared specifically for discussions at Davos. One of these that attracted a lot of attention was by a successful entrepreneur who had done well in Silicon Valley.

He argued that inequality results from risks taken by people with good ideas. Those who succeed change the way the world works and in the process make a good deal of money for themselves.

The list of obvious examples begin with Bill Gates, who founded Microsoft. Then there is Steve Jobs, who went on to establish Apple that produced a string of successful consumer products and software for operating them.

Mark Zuckerberg gave the world Facebook, which became the core of social networking. All of these and several more innovators became billionaires while still very young. And then-

AND ALL the students of the world worked selflessly, and voluntarily, to give the world -the World Students Society, lovingly called -!WOW!. The students best option and hope for a dignified and fulfilling Ecosystem and life.

!WOW! -the World Students Society is owned by every single student in the world. One Share-Peace-Piece. And all revenues, and all financials belong to the students of the world, alone.]

While this is an appealing argument, it works as an explanation for small a part of inequality. Several studies have demonstrated that in recent decades, inter-personal and inter-regional inequalities have increased.

If social scientists and policy makers have learned anything about how to help the world's poorest people, it's not to trust our intuitions or anecdotal evidence about what kinds of antipoverty programs effective.

Rigorous randomized evaluations of policies, however, can, show us what works and what doesn't.

Two recent studies, for example, which were conducted in sub-Saharan Africa by field researchers working with scholars of behavioral science in the United States and England, tested antipoverty strategies and found in each case that conventional instincts about what would work were wrong.

[These collaborations were organized by our nonprofit, Innovations for Poverty Action, which has overseen more than 500 such evaluations in 51 countries].

The first study took place in Uganda. As is the case in many poor countries, given when children in Uganda can go to school, they often lack the money for basic school supplies, which can limit their learning.

Research has shown that '' commitment devices,'' which keep savings out of reach until a date or savings goal is reached, can be effective in helping people save.

So, Professor Karlan, along with the University of Texas economist Leigh Linden, collaborated with two education organizations in Uganda to find out if commitment devices could help students save for school supplies -and if so, how best to design the commitment strategy.

Public primary school students were given the chance to deposit money weekly into a lockbox, and they were informed that their accumulated savings would be returned to them at a school-supplies fair at the beginning of the next trimester.

Schools were randomly assigned to one of the three groups. In the first group, students were offered a 'hard'' commitment : Their accumulated savings would be returned in the form of a voucher that had to be spent on school supplies.

In the second group, students got a ''soft'' commitment. Their savings would be returned in cash, and could be spent as a comparison group whose savings and spending money were also observed.

You might think that the ''hard'' commitment would be the best strategy, since it forces the money to be spent on school supplies. But surprisingly, as the authors reported in a working paper, the soft commitment worked better.

Students who got their savings back in cash, saved more, and when the program was combined with parental involvement {which was also randomized}. the students also bought more school supplies and achieved higher test scores.

The Honour and Serving of the latest '' Poverty and Inequality Operational Research '' continues. Thank you all for reading and sharing. And see Ya all on the following one.

With respectful dedication to the Leaders, Parents, Students, Professors and Teachers of the world. See Ya all on !WOW! -the World Students Society and the Ecosystem 2011.